Friday, September 26, 2003
JAMES FISK AND JAY GOULD OF ARABIA. Joshua Micah Marshall isn’t pleased with the creation of New Bridge Strategies. Here’s the company’s self-description:
Mr. Marshall notes the following:
On one level, I find myself in agreement. The seemingly endless parade of media stories on Halliburton, no-bid contracts, and the like demonstrate (if one wishes to be charitable toward the Bush team) a questionable tactical move and a tin ear when it comes to how the administration’s policies will be perceived by the average American (if there is such a creature). Those less charitable towards Bush and his ilk argue that these stories demonstrate a venal mendacity seldom paralleled in the annals of American politics.
On another level, though, I find such attacks to be incomplete at best. First, on the micro-level, I have seldom if ever seen any good reporting on the overall Iraq-related procurement and contract picture. What percentage of the money earmarked for Iraq has gone to Halliburton et al? 5%? 50%? 95%? Frankly I haven’t a clue and those who constantly bring up this issue to use it to criticize the administration haven’t enlightened me. Therefore, I don’t really know how bad the problem really is. And I don’t know how the $600 million contract awarded to Diane Feinstein’s husband’s URS Corporation fits into the overall picture. Moreover, I do not know whether the choice to award contracts to Bush cronies was done at the expense of other equally competent firms. Did this happen? I suspect that it did (and Marshall certainly implies that this process will continue with New Bridge Strategies) but I have no idea who the jilted firms that have been left out in the cold are. Are they any less connected to the establishment? Any less intertwined with “big oil?”
Second, on the macro-level, what would Mr. Marshall and others have the U.S. Government do at this point? Full disclosure: I opposed this war on Iraq though not without significant misgivings (for statements on this, see here and here). However, my wishes were not heeded. The U.S. invaded, toppled Saddam Hussein and his odious regime (not a bad thing), and is trying to rebuild the place. In order to do so, they need to use Iraq’s available resources of which oil is clearly the most easily available and valuable. Who should the U.S. government turn to in order to speedily expedite the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Iraq’s oil industries and infrastructures? Energy companies who do this for a living, or Greenpeace or the Sierra Club? Again, this could merely be another demonstration of my lamentable ignorance; there may be viable alternative firms that have been shut out because of the Bush-crony-oil nexus. But if they exist, they haven’t been too vocal or reported on. Would Mr. Marshall be content if the same reconstruction path were followed but that firms like Haliburton and New Bridge are excluded from the process? Or would any contracts with any energy companies be suspect? If so, what should we do? Trite conclusion: it is easy to criticize; much harder to offer viable alternatives.
New Bridge Strategies, LLC is a unique company that was created specifically with the aim of assisting clients to evaluate and take advantage of business opportunities in the Middle East following the conclusion of the U.S.-led war in Iraq. Its activities will seek to expedite the creation of free and fair markets and new economic growth in Iraq, consistent with the policies of the Bush Administration.
Mr. Marshall notes the following:
A 'unique company'? You could say that. Who's the Chairman and Director of New Bridge? That would be Joe M. Allbaugh, President Bush's longtime right-hand-man and until about six months ago his head of FEMA. Before that of course he was the president's chief of staff when he was governor of Texas and campaign manager for Bush-Cheney 2000.
Allbaugh was part of the president's so-called 'Iron Triangle' -- the other two being Karl Rove and Karen Hughes. And now Allbaugh's running an outfit that helps your company get the sweetest contracts in Iraq? That sound right to you? Think he'll have any special pull?
On one level, I find myself in agreement. The seemingly endless parade of media stories on Halliburton, no-bid contracts, and the like demonstrate (if one wishes to be charitable toward the Bush team) a questionable tactical move and a tin ear when it comes to how the administration’s policies will be perceived by the average American (if there is such a creature). Those less charitable towards Bush and his ilk argue that these stories demonstrate a venal mendacity seldom paralleled in the annals of American politics.
On another level, though, I find such attacks to be incomplete at best. First, on the micro-level, I have seldom if ever seen any good reporting on the overall Iraq-related procurement and contract picture. What percentage of the money earmarked for Iraq has gone to Halliburton et al? 5%? 50%? 95%? Frankly I haven’t a clue and those who constantly bring up this issue to use it to criticize the administration haven’t enlightened me. Therefore, I don’t really know how bad the problem really is. And I don’t know how the $600 million contract awarded to Diane Feinstein’s husband’s URS Corporation fits into the overall picture. Moreover, I do not know whether the choice to award contracts to Bush cronies was done at the expense of other equally competent firms. Did this happen? I suspect that it did (and Marshall certainly implies that this process will continue with New Bridge Strategies) but I have no idea who the jilted firms that have been left out in the cold are. Are they any less connected to the establishment? Any less intertwined with “big oil?”
Second, on the macro-level, what would Mr. Marshall and others have the U.S. Government do at this point? Full disclosure: I opposed this war on Iraq though not without significant misgivings (for statements on this, see here and here). However, my wishes were not heeded. The U.S. invaded, toppled Saddam Hussein and his odious regime (not a bad thing), and is trying to rebuild the place. In order to do so, they need to use Iraq’s available resources of which oil is clearly the most easily available and valuable. Who should the U.S. government turn to in order to speedily expedite the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Iraq’s oil industries and infrastructures? Energy companies who do this for a living, or Greenpeace or the Sierra Club? Again, this could merely be another demonstration of my lamentable ignorance; there may be viable alternative firms that have been shut out because of the Bush-crony-oil nexus. But if they exist, they haven’t been too vocal or reported on. Would Mr. Marshall be content if the same reconstruction path were followed but that firms like Haliburton and New Bridge are excluded from the process? Or would any contracts with any energy companies be suspect? If so, what should we do? Trite conclusion: it is easy to criticize; much harder to offer viable alternatives.
